Miley Cyrus: Something Beautiful review – Like Bangerz without the bangers, or Flowers without the bloom
Something Beautiful
Artist
:
Miley Cyrus
Label
:
Columbia
As
Miley Cyrus
returns with her first album in two years, it is to a pop landscape defined by change. Taylor Swift's Eras tour has come and gone, and we've had both Charli XCX's Brat summer and 12 supercaffeinated months of Sabrina Carpenter's Espresso.
Those three artists offer a clear vision of themselves to the world: they are the very opposite of enigmatic. In the case of Cyrus, however, it's always been difficult to get a sense of what she is about, both as a person and as a musician. She is ubiquitous yet inscrutable, famous yet as blank as an empty space.
Her success can, even today, feel like a byproduct of the megafame she experienced as the teenage star of the Disney series Hannah Montana – an aftershock carrying into adulthood. (She is now 32.)
Cyrus has, it is true, clocked up hits by the bouquetful. Written in the aftermath of her divorce from the actor Liam Hemsworth, Flowers, her smash hit from 2023, has taken up its place in the modern pantheon of break-up bangers. The most-streamed single of that year, it was a tear-streaked victory lap that refused to retreat into the wings.
READ MORE
Still, as a unified vision, there has always been a sense of Cyrus as a work in progress, a pop project yet to take its final form. We know that she is no longer the girl-next-door tweenager moulded by the Walt Disney Company – she has, after all, spent almost her entire grown-up life rejecting everything Hannah Montana represented (culminating with her most zeitgeisty LP, Bangerz, from 2013).
That has left a blank she has yet to fill. Take away the growing pains, the post-Disney angst, and who is Miley Cyrus?
That question is not answered by Something Beautiful, an ambitious yet patchy and underwhelming record that, much like Cyrus's public persona, has a huge, pulsating void at its centre. It confirms that Cyrus is still a cipher, as invisible as she is omnipresent, a point spelled out by the cover shot of the artist in shadow. All you can really see is the outline: she is the idea of a pop star rather than the reality.
Something Beautiful is a concept LP – several, in fact. Cyrus has described it as a 'visual album', and it will be followed by an accompanying movie to be released next month. (A polyp on her vocal cords prevents her from touring: the film is intended as the next best thing.) It is presented, moreover, as her gift to us, the needy masses; she has described it as containing 'healing sound properties' that would 'medicate somewhat of a sick culture through music'.
She has also revealed that the album was inspired by the Pink Floyd LP The Wall, Roger Waters's opus about alienation, paranoia and the unspeakable pain of being a member of the world's biggest prog band. Cyrus has never been a member of the world's biggest prog band – unless we count her collaborations with The Flaming Lips.
Either way, cut through the new-age-therapy blather and Something Beautiful is revealed to be a watery revisiting of her best work: Bangerz without the bangers, Flowers without the bloom.
There are flashes of pretension throughout. Opening with the grandiose Prelude, a spooling spoken-word piece, the album quickly segues into the anonymous soul-pop workout Something Beautiful, on which her husky voice is offset by a gentle saxophone.
But just when you think she's ditched the high-concept yoga-mat talk, she's back with End of the World, a serving of fluffy electronica driven by mantra-like lyrics ('Oh, I wanna take you to Nirvana, we can't take you too far').
Something Beautiful doesn't entirely miss the target: Easy Lover – nothing to do with Phil Collins, more's the pity – has a Grace Jones-like disco-apocalypse energy, while Golden Burning Sun is a trippy excursion into indie rock. (The LP's producer, Shawn Everett, has worked with The War and Drugs and Julian Casablancas.)
But there's lots of that goes wrong too: Walk of Fame sounds like X Factor Lady Gaga (not even the contribution of Alabama Shakes' Brittany Howard can help); and Every Girl You've Ever Loved is a saxophone solo desperately seeking a purpose in life (it also features a baffling spoken-word piece by Naomi Campbell). Far from channelling Pink Floyd, Cyrus's post-Flowers comeback is, in the end, largely colourless and lustreless.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Irish Sun
3 hours ago
- The Irish Sun
Disney+ viewers could be slapped with whopping £1,000 fine if they tune into huge new sports boost – don't take the risk
DISNEY+ viewers should be wary of an upcoming boost in sports content that could land them a £1,000 fine just for watching. Earlier this week, the streaming giant announced it had 2 The UEFA Women's Champions League trophy Credit: Getty 2 Being caught without a TV Licence can result in a hefty £1,000 fine Credit: PA Photos It means that from October, fans will be able to watch every match live through their Disney+ subscription - at no extra cost. However, sports fans should be cautious of TV Licensing rules. Households require a TV Licence to watch live content - even through a streaming platform like Disney+. And being caught without a TV Licence can result in a hefty £1,000 fine. READ MORE ON STREAMING On-demand content - shows you can watch at any given moment - don't require the extra fee. It only applies if you tune into live shows and matches. In the days when streaming services hosted exclusively on-demand content, they were safe to use without a TV Licence. But with an increasing number of streamers picking up live TV content, particularly in the realm of sports, the chances of households breaking TV licensing rules has jumped. Most read in Tech Households were given similar warning last year, when Netflix took over rights to WWE with live broadcasts taking place on the app more than ever before. TV Licensing previously reiterated the rules to The Sun in November ahead of Netflix's "A TV Licence is needed to watch live content on streaming services, watch or record a TV programme on any channel and when using BBC iPlayer," a rep said at the time. "Further information is available on the TV Licensing website or via the customer services team, who can help with any queries." The TV Licence fee was recently increased by £5 , jumping from £169.50 previously to £174.50 since April 1. What are the TV Licence rules? Jamie Harris, Assistant Technology and Science Editor at The Sun, explains : A TV Licence currently costs £169.50. Some people mistakenly believe that you only need a TV Licence if you have a TV or watch BBC channels. You aren't breaking the law if you own a TV without a licence, as long as it's not hooked up to an aerial or other live broadcasting equipment - so you can use it with your PS5 for gaming for example. The basic principle is, that if you are accessing any live broadcast from any channel, whether it be through a TV or online, you must have a TV Licence. If you are recording a live broadcast to watch later, you also need a TV Licence. Watching on-demand content does not require a TV Licence - except if you're watching BBC iPlayer. Image credit: Alamy
Irish Times
10 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘Should I tell my wife that I'm a crossdresser after more than 20 years together?'
Dear Roe, Should I tell my wife I'm a crossdresser? I've kept this part of me secret since childhood and through our marriage. I really haven't had much opportunity to explore this part of myself but it has always been there. Over the past year or so, I've bought my own clothes, make-up and wig and taken some time when home alone to dress. More recently I've found some community with other crossdressers online, sharing photos and chatting. I've enjoyed this sense of connection and recognition. My wife and I are happy, we have three beautiful kids, good careers and share interests in the outdoors and travel. Our values and priorities are aligned and we make a good team. We also love each other very much and have been together for more than 20 years. But I'm pretty certain she would reject this side of me – I don't think she would accept me expressing myself through crossdressing, but more so because of the deceit. I should have told her about this – before we married and had kids, and before I took the next step of engaging online. So my dilemma is: do I keep this secret? I don't think I can stop completely, but I've kept it secret for almost 40 years since childhood, so why not for another 40? On the other hand, I know my mental health is suffering from keeping secrets, and if there was acceptance at the other end of what would be a difficult process then I know I would be happier. But at what cost? Do I have the right to shatter my wife's image of me as a good husband, father and partner for something so selfish? Is it possible to stop or even keep it secret indefinitely? I'm worried if speaking this truth will open up a path to something else. I don't know what to do. There's an emotional line running through your letter, underneath the question of whether to tell your wife about your crossdressing. It's something deeper, more painful: the fear that doing so will collapse the image she holds of you. You're afraid that being honest will somehow undo your role as a good husband, father, or man. Let's be very clear: it doesn't. This part of you doesn't cancel the rest of you. You are still good, still worthy, still lovable, still the same devoted partner and parent. That remains true, whatever comes next. READ MORE You carry guilt for not telling her sooner – before marriage, children, private exploration – and that's understandable. But it's also understandable why you didn't. You chose secrecy not out of malice but out of fear, out of shame, out of a cultural world that tells men like you that femininity is weakness and gender play is deviance. Most of us were never given the tools to talk about this stuff in real time. You were trying to protect the life you were building. That doesn't make you malicious, that makes you human. [ 'Why does my husband act like this? An affair I could deal with' Opens in new window ] You also feared that speaking this truth might start something you couldn't control, and that it would lead somewhere unknown. And that's probably true. Opening this door may indeed lead you to learn new things about yourself, your needs, your desires. But those discoveries aren't threats – they're invitations to a deeper, fuller and ultimately more sustainable self. Self-suppression has a cost, and you're already paying it: in mental health, in emotional loneliness, in the wear and tear of hiding. You've lived so much of your life for others. But your needs matter too. To feel truly loved, you have to be fully seen. Let's pause here and say this clearly: crossdressing does not automatically say anything about your sexuality or gender identity. It means wearing clothing typically associated with another gender – something that's been heavily policed for men in particular. People crossdress for many reasons: comfort, play, expression, eroticism, identity, artistry or joy. It doesn't make you any less of a man, or any more of a woman. It simply means you're exploring a side of yourself that deserves compassion and space. Crossdressing challenges an arbitrary gender binary – this rigid system that says men must act one way, dress one way, feel one way, and women another. It's a system that's deeply cultural, not natural, and it harms everyone by limiting how we get to be human. Crossdressing is well overdue destigmatisation. It's kind of pathetic and silly when you break it down. It's just clothes. If our patriarchal society wasn't so deeply threatened by gender fluidity, it wouldn't be an issue. And if the gender binary was really so natural and innate, we wouldn't have to police it to such ridiculous levels. You are not doing something shameful or unnatural, you are stepping into a fuller expression of your humanity. [ 'I got back with my partner after breaking up with him but I am still plagued by doubts' Opens in new window ] The fear that your wife might grieve or recoil isn't irrational. She may feel grief – not necessarily because you crossdress, but because she'll need to reorient her picture of your inner world. That's okay. That's part of real intimacy. None of us stay exactly who we were when we first fell in love. The people we marry will change. Long-term love makes room for evolution. Relationships thrive not by avoiding change but by meeting each other with honesty and care when change happens. You fear ruining her and your children's image of you. But what if, instead of ruining it, you're giving her the gift of knowing you more truly? What if her image of you as a 'good man' becomes even richer – because it now includes courage, vulnerability, complexity and honesty? What if your experience of parenting becomes more meaningful because you're teaching your children how to love and respect everyone around them as they are; teaching them that just like you, their identities and realities deserve love and support; and teaching them that the world and human beings are so much more rich and beautiful and complicated than patriarchy's small, rigid boxes – and that that's gorgeous? If she struggles with the secrecy, explain that you didn't hide this to deceive her, but to protect yourself When you're considering whether to share something this personal with someone you love, especially after so many years of holding it in, it's not just about disclosure – it's about connection. About finally bringing a part of yourself out of the dark in the hope that your relationship can hold it. That kind of truth-telling takes courage, and it also benefits from preparation. Before you talk to your wife, take time to reflect on what crossdressing means to you. Is it private? Creative? Sexual? Do you want her involvement or just her understanding? The clearer you are, the more safely you can guide the conversation. Frame it as an act of trust, not a confession. Something like, 'This has been part of me for a long time, and I've been scared to share it. But I trust you, and I want to be known more fully.' You're not detonating your marriage – you're opening a door to deeper connection. Expect emotion. She may feel confused, hurt, even betrayed, not necessarily because of what you're sharing, but because it's new and unexpected. You've had a lifetime to make peace with this. She hasn't. Give her space, stay present, and don't confuse discomfort with rejection. She may have questions, and it could help to have resources to offer a gentle path to understanding – articles, stories or media that show this is a real, human experience lived by many in healthy, loving relationships. Tell her what's not changing: your love, your role as partner and parent, your commitment to her. That reassurance matters. If she struggles with the secrecy, explain that you didn't hide this to deceive her, but to protect yourself from a world that told you this part of you wasn't acceptable. You're not asking her to bear the burden of that shame – you're asking her to help you put it down. A couples therapist who is informed about gender identity, expression, and nontraditional relationship dynamics can be an invaluable guide. Letting this part of you breathe may feel risky, but it's also a step towards being fully known. That's where deeper love begins. Good luck. .form-group {width:100% !important;}
Irish Times
10 hours ago
- Irish Times
When it comes to ‘howcatchems', Poker Face is the new Columbo. Respect
An unwritten rule in journalism states that you need at least three occurrences of an unexpected phenomenon to generate a 'What's up with that ?' feature. Having fruitlessly searched for a third, I am, however, forced to settle for just two examples of current TV shows revisiting Columbo 's 'howcatchem' structure. You see that in the excellent Poker Face. You also see it in the amiable Elsbeth. What's up with that? There is also welcome evidence here of a drift back to a wider convention of classic telly, but we'll get to that in a minute. Let me take a pencil from behind my ear and flick through a tattered notebook while puffing on a cheap cigar. Where was I, ma'am? Ah, yes. Not the whodunit, the howcatchem. More formally referred to as the inverted detective story, such entertainments begin by showing us the crime being committed before following the coppers as they work their way to the solution. [ Donald Clarke: The enduring appeal of the greatest TV show ever made Opens in new window ] Both the current examples go further in their homage to their durable 1970s inspiration. Like Peter Falk in Columbo, Natasha Lyonne , as the wandering savant Charlie Cale in Poker Face, and Carrie Preston, as the relocated attorney Elsbeth Tascioni in Elsbeth (a spin off from The Good Wife), spend large parts of each episode making inexhaustible nuisances of themselves to that week's chief suspect. READ MORE Peter Falk as Columbo. Photograph: FilmPublicityArchive/United Archives via Getty All three exhibit borderline-supernatural levels of perception. The moment they arrive on the scene, one tiny anomaly points them towards the perpetrator, and no amount of disingenuous evasion will distract them from their pursuit. The audience, rather than fretting over whether the butler did it, focuses attention on which apparently airtight element of the murder is set to spring a leak. Sometimes the murderer is strangely likable. They are almost always comfortably off and so in a position to look down their noses at Columbo/Cale/Tascioni. If you turned on your telly in a hotel room and encountered an episode of Dad's Army, Kojak or The Dukes of Hazzard it mattered not which 'season' it was from It is a perfect, easily replicable format, and nobody should be surprised – or irritated – that the makers of these new shows look to be paying it deserved tribute. The folk behind Poker Face have even gone so far as to imitate the graphics from Columbo in their own opening credits. Respect where respect is due. Something else is, however, worth noting in the popularity of these series. We are finally seeing kickback against the hitherto unstoppable move from TV in stand-alone episodes to continuous, season-long serials. Until relatively recently most sitcoms and cop shows offered you, each week, a self-contained story that reset before the end credits. There was, in the era of Columbo, occasionally some glacial progression. A new junior detective would turn up. We met his dog for the first time. Poker Face is a 10-episode mystery-of-the-week series following Natasha Lyonne's Charlie Cale. Photograph: Sky/Peacock. But, essentially, nothing of note changed in Columboworld between 1971 and 1978 (or, indeed, up to the close of the lesser revival in 2003). If you turned on your telly in a hotel room and encountered an episode of Dad's Army, Kojak or The Dukes of Hazzard it mattered not which 'season' (as nobody in Ireland then said) it was from. You would get one story arc that ultimately reversed any disruption to the established scenario. Harold never escaped his father in Steptoe and Son. Starsky and Hutch were forever in the same Ford Gran Torino. I was reminded how recently this changed when talking to Michael Cera , star of Arrested Development, two weeks ago in Cannes. One reason, he explained, the show did not catch on during its initial run, 20 years ago, was that the creators insisted on a continuing plot. 'If your friends said this show is funny and you watched episode six with no context, you really couldn't enjoy half of the humour or the story,' Cera told me. [ Benicio Del Toro and Michael Cera on The Phoenician Scheme Opens in new window ] Arrested Development arrived a few short years before streaming changed everything. Now every episode was sitting neatly in the same virtual space. Episode one was always available if you wished to get stuck into the larger narrative. Cliffhanger endings abounded. The dealers (streamers) soon had the users (viewers) hooked on a near-endless supply of gear (telly). Yet decisions made for the current, second season of Poker Face confirm there is still a desire for mainstream TV in discrete packages. The first outings of both that show and Elsbeth did have superficial, peripheral season arcs about which nobody much cared. It seemed there was a law against making a show that didn't at least tip its hat to the serial aesthetic. Even that has now gone for Poker Face. Speaking to GQ, Rian Johnson, creator of the show, acknowledged that he wanted to get away from 'the superstructure' and 'get back to what the show is really supposed to be about, which is, each week, let's have a fun mystery.' He delivers on that. Watch the new episodes in whatever order you prefer. It's 1978 all over again. Poker Face and Elsbeth are available via Now TV
